HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.A 07/14/2003CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
0-,
AGENDA BILL
JUL zUU
Mee,
Agenda. Title
7 July 2003
Discussion and Possible Direction on Cross -Town Mobility
Enhancement Options for Inclusion in General Plan 2004 -2025
Meeting Time ❑ 3:00 PM
Alternatives Analysis
XX 7:00 PM
Catep,ory (check one) ❑' consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing E]' New Business
X Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department
Directo
ontact Person.
Phone Number
General Plan
Pamela Tuft
Vk
Pamela
Pamela
(707) 778 -4552
A dministration
Cost of Proposal N/A
Account Number N/A
Amouni,Budgeted N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Agenda Packet.Item
m Exhibit illustrating eight alternative alignments for cross -town mobility improvements
o Draft definition of three, land use alternatives
Summary Statement
Community visioning workshops on mobility reflected the continued divided opinions on desired long-
term roadway and pathway improvement needs. Comments from the public workshops and preliminary
analysis by the General Plan consultant teams have identified eight options:
® IA Corona Road..widening(4 vehicle lanes + bicycle lanes)
® 1B Corona Road widening (4 lanes + bikes + interchange)
® 2A Rainier Village (underpass with interchange)
® 2B Rainier (as, originally approved — overpass with interchange)
® 3 Rainier Light (underpass no interchange, Shasta Avenue. connection)
® 4A Southern Crossing (Caulfield to Mountain View) .
® 4B Southern Crossing (Caulfield to Petaluma Blvd South at Quarry)
® 5 Corona/Rainier Off - "ramps (SB at Corona/NB at Rainier)
The General Plan preparation process includes the development of three land use alternatives, and the
accompanying roadway improvements and other mobility options. These three land use /circulation
alternatives will be analyzed through the various models (surface water, transportation, water supply, and
fiscal) to more fully understand the benefits, impacts, and costs associated with the implementation of the
alternatives. Following public outreach and evaluation, the three alternatives will be presented to the
Council for identification of the preferred alternative (or the combination or blending ' of alternatives to
result in a preferred. alternative). Goals, policies and programs to implement the preferred alternative- will
then be assembled into :a Draft General Plan for community consideration. Costs associated with the
preferred alternative will be included in the Implementation Plan.
Recommended City. Council Action /Suggested Motion
Council discussion, and, possible direction, regarding preferred cross -town connections to be included in
the alternatives analysis.
Reviewed by Finance "Director:
Reviewed b Citv Attorne :
Approv6d Manage
te:+
s' e:7
Date:
T ay's Date
Revision # and Date.Revised :"
File C` e.
#
23 July 2003
H`pUGP2004/reportsTC cross -town options 070703.doc
Agenda Bill. Discussion and Possible Direction on Cross -Town Mobility Enhancement Options . 7 July 2003
CITY OF PE TA LU MA, CALIFORNIA
L� 7 Ju LI' 2,003
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
Discussion and Possible Direction on
Cross -Town Mobility Enhancement Options for
Inclusion in General Plan 2004 -2025 Alternative Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the completion of Highway 101, the community-has faced the challenge of vehicle,
bicycle and pedestrian connections between the neighborhoods separated by the physical
barriers of the freeway, railroad and river. In the mid -1960s a connection between Rainier
and Petaluma Boulevard. North, with aninterchange on Highway 101, was included in the
General Plan. In the years since then the Council studied several alternative location and
interchange configurations. In 1994. the City Council approved a proj ect design alternative
for Rainier. Subsequently, in 1999 the City Council deleted the project from the Capital
Improvement Project List and suspended the funding for preliminary design work.
Analysis of local serving roadway needs during early work on the Corona Reach Specific
Plan, in the late 1990's', led to Council direction to staff to address land use and mobility
issues within the new General Plan.
Community visioning workshops on mobility reflected the continued divided opinions on
desired long -term roadway and 'pathway improvement needs. Comments from the public
workshops and preliminary analysis by the General Plan consultant teams have identified
eight options:
• IA Corona Road widening (4 vehicle lanes +'bicycle lanes). This project would
widen the existing structure to provide four lanes and bicycle lanes. No
substantial, change in alignment or elevation would occur.
• 1B Corona Road widening (4 lanes + bikes + interchange). This project would .
widen the Corona Road overpass to provide 4 travel lanes, bicycle lanes and
on and off -ramps to Highway 101 (configuration of the interchange and the
resulting; impact to adjacent properties has not been. evaluated).
• 2A Rainier Village (underpass with interchange). This project would create a
new intersection on Petaluma Boulevard North, which would be extended to
North McDowell Boulevard utilizing an underpass at Highway 101 and an
at -grade crossing of the railroad mainline and low profile bridges crossing
the Petaluma River. A secondary local frontage access road would be
developed to serve the existing Oak Creek Apartments and other properties.
• 2B Rainier (as originally approved — overpass with interchange). This project
would include an extended bridge and Highway 101 overpass from a new
intersection at Petaluma Boulevard 'North to North McDowell Boulevard.
H:pt/GP2004 /reports \CC cross -town options 070703.doe
Page 2
Agenda Bill' Discussion and Possible Direction on Cross -Town Mobilitv Enhancement Options 7 July 2003
Includes an elevated structure to cross the River, railroad mainline and
connection. to Highway 1 with a frill interchange. Off -ramps from the •'
elevated structure will access:adjacent lands.
• 3 Rainier Light (underpass, no" interchange, Shasta Avenue connection). This
project would provide additional cross -town vehicle, bicycle and, pedestrian
movement through an underpass, and an at -grade crossing of the railroad
main line and the river.
• 4A Southern Crossing (Caulfield to Mountain View). This project would bridge
the River, north of the existing McNear Landing neighborhood to provide a
four -way signalized intersection at Mountain, View Avenue.
• 4B Southern Crossing (Caulfield to Petaluma Blvd South at Quarry). This
project would bridge the River, south of the existing McNear Landing
neighborhood to provide an intersection roughly aligned with - the, existing
driveway at the Dutra Quarry. It is assumed that the approved Reclamation
,Plan for the `Quarry will be implemented within the life of the new General
Plan and redevelopment of the site will occur in keeping. with the adopted
Land Use designations within the 2004 -2025 Plan.
• 5 Corona/Rainier Off ramps (SB at Corona/NB at ; Rainier). This project
would provide a southbound off -ramp from Highway 101` at Corona to
access a future collector road parallel to Highway 101 (as' envisioned and
illustrated in the 1987 -2005 General Plan); it would also provide a
northbound off-ramp to access a westerly extension. of Rainier Avenue.
These two off-ramps could be connected with an underpass in the vicinity of
the Rainier Avenue extension. This project would ,serve as� a vehicle'
pedestrian and bicycle cross -town. connector and relieve the ?M peak traffic
volumes at the East Washington Street interchange. No on -ramps to
Highway 101 would be provided. It is recognized that this option is not the
typical CalTrans standard and would,require agency :approvals.
In addition to the above, the following cross -town connection options were discussed and
deemed not appropriate for further consideration, primarily due to elevation and separation
requirement constraints:
• Jefferson Street .extension eastward connecting. to South McDowell Boulevard at
McKenzie Avenue.
Madison Street. extending eastward to connect to South McDowell Boulevard at
East Madison Street.
® Southpoint Boulevard extending westward to connect to Petaluma Boulevard
North.
The "General Plan. preparation process includes the development of three land use
alternatives, and the accompanying roadway improvements and. other mobility options.
These three land, use /circulation alternatives will be analyzed through the various models
(surface water,_ transportation, water supply, and fiscal) to more fully understand the
benefits, impacts, and costs associated with the iin}Jlementation of the ..alternatives: The
traffic modeling exercise will . provide information on potential measures of effectiveness
by comparing the, cross -town connector scenarios,, including: travel time; travel, distance,
volume -to- capacity; and, qualitative bicycle and pedestrian analysis
H:pt/GP2004 /reports \CC cross= toxin- options 070703.doc
Page 3
J,zenda Bill: Discussion and Possible Direction on Cross - Town Mobilitv Enhancement Options 7 July 2003
Following public outreach and evaluation, the three alternatives will be presented to the
® Council for 'identification of °the preferred alternative (or the combination or blending of
alternatives to result in a preferred :alternative). The analysis by the various models will
allow the community and the Council to narrow down cross -town connector options as
part of the preferred alternative selection process. Goals, policies and programs to
implement the preferred alternative will then be >assembled into a Draft General Plan for
community consideration. Costs associated with the preferred alternative will be included
in the Implementation Plan. Authorization to proceed with preliminary design work will
follow certification of the General Plan EIR and adoption of the General Plan.
2. BACKGROUND
A brief history of cross -town connectors and the US' Highway 101 interchange follows:
1965: The Petaluma General Plan incorporates a four -lane arterial and future cross-
town connector to Petaluma Boulevard North, with a freeway interchange at
US 101
1994: Council certifies an EIR and approves the Rainier overpass /interchange
proj ect.
1995: City Council adopts the Precise' Plan Line, illustrating the probable
alignment of the project.
1998: Council adopts Resolution determining the preferred interchange design
configuration and/or other design options for preparation of the Project
Report:
1998: Council directs staff to prepare a Work Plan and budget for the project as
part 'of the future General Plan update.
1999: Council deletes project from CIP and halts preliminary design work on
Rainier.
2003: Council directed staff to place a cross-town connector in the CIP project list.
2003: Council adopted Central Petaluma Specific Plan, including the identification
of a southern crossing (extending Caulfield Avenue to cross the River to
Petaluma Boulevard South).
3. ALTERNATIVES
A. Discuss the;, alternatives presented 'on the attached illustration; provide direction to
include specific cross -town improvements in the General Plan alternatives analysis.
The three alternatives could evaluate identical options, or a different selection for each
of the alternatives.
B. Discuss the alternatives 'presented on the attached illustration; defer selection of
preferred roadway alternatives until after assessment, through the various models.
C. Defer discussion until later in the General Plan preparation process.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The General Plan is an approved budget item; work is proceeding in accordance with the
executed Professional Services Contracts.
H:pt/GP2004 /reports \CC cross -town options 070703.doc
Page 4
Agenda Bill.. Discussion and Possible DireMon,on Cross -Town. Mobility Enhancement Options 7 July 2003
5. 'CONCLUSION
Identification rof additional cross -town connectors within the context of 'a; Draft General
Plan will lead to .the inclusion of the selected improvements in the adopted 'Implementation
Plan, Capital Improvement List, Traffic Impact Fee 'list of improvements and the eventual
development of.a Work Plan and Schedule for undertaking the work effort.
6. ®UTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS TH WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
Dependent on 'Council direction, work will continue immediately on evaluatiori 'of the -,three
land use and mobility alternatives (including the .cross -town connectors) through the
General Plan models.
7. RECOMMENDATION
Council discussion, and possible direction,, regarding the preferred cross =town connectors
to be evaluated wi'th'in the context of the General Plan land use alternatives.
Attachments
t.
H:pt/GP2004/ reports \CC crosstown gptions 070703.doc.
Page 5
'0
WI
'1
LO
Blv 0
) Y4 iMIX14
a �'' j� 7 F x.<
TI
Ar
v�
A
[I'll
A
w
z
w
ml
w
Z
w
w
Z
Z
w
t:
0
m
CY .9)
m
(aj
0
Z
>
0
r- M L-
S E 0
0 CD IM
2 (L CIO
0 0—
CL
E
o V
L) 0 0
CD
(D
U) w
co 0
0 2
> D L) 0
a r-
m
0
0 0 "
C0 CO 0
III a d llt LO
(D
Co r U)
+
c c
CL
0
M cc
0 0 0
o
0 0
0 0.—
>
�, �e- Clq